I understand what Justice Roberts was trying to do here .. I really do.

1) He was trying to uphold the integrity of the court, to assure people that the court is above politics.

2) He was putting a road block in front of this notion that the commerce clause can be used for compulsory reasons.

3) He was creating a scenario, where the "Will of the People" will figure in this issue. As he noted, it is not the court's role to distinguish between bad policy and good policy. [I'm thinking he was setting this up to be an issue in the election ... figuring the people will either vote Obama and the Democrats in the Sentate out and repeal the law, or let it stand].

BUT ... he made a miscalculation. He has inadvertantly introduced into the record a precedent that Congress can make the Public do something under the penalty of a Tax. Prior to this ruling, it was understood, and maybe even written, that Taxes can only arise from the House [which this one did not, as this "tax" orginated in the courts, as no where in the law is the penalty referred to as a tax, and Obama himself is on record repeately insisting the penalty was not a tax ... and it is assumed that the law would not have passed it had been presented as a tax], AND ... that taxes could only be levied to raise revenue, .. not as a punishment of any sorts.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for this nation. The only saving grace, is that it will carry political ramifications ... as it most likely will this November.

I understand what Justice Roberts was trying to do here .. I really do.

1) He was trying to uphold the integrity of the court, to assure people that the court is above politics.

2) He was putting a road block in front of this notion that the commerce clause can be used for compulsory reasons.

3) He was creating a scenario, where the "Will of the People" will figure in this issue. As he noted, it is not the court's role to distinguish between bad policy and good policy. [I'm thinking he was setting this up to be an issue in the election ... figuring the people will either vote Obama and the Democrats in the Sentate out and repeal the law, or let it stand].

BUT ... he made a miscalculation. He has inadvertantly introduced into the record a precedent that Congress can make the Public do something under the penalty of a Tax. Prior to this ruling, it was understood, and maybe even written, that Taxes can only arise from the House [which this one did not, as this "tax" orginated in the courts, as no where in the law is the penalty referred to as a tax, and Obama himself is on record repeately insisting the penalty was not a tax ... and it is assumed that the law would not have passed it had been presented as a tax], AND ... that taxes could only be levied to raise revenue, .. not as a punishment of any sorts.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for this nation. The only saving grace, is that it will carry political ramifications ... as it most likely will this November.

So, are you saying that if you don't use the word "tax" it can't be a tax? Both the house and the Senate has to vote on everything...so, what are you saying???

The House voted...The Senate voted...The President signed the bill into law.

Grover, where are you Grover!!!

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21

It wasn't passed as a tax. Roberts declared it a tax. The house voted on a mandate. Roberts should have ruled the mandate unconstitutional, and sent it back to congress to fix it. Instead he, from the bench, rewrote the law.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple...........but only God can count the apples in the seeds.

It wasn't passed as a tax. Roberts declared it a tax. The house voted on a mandate. Roberts should have ruled the mandate unconstitutional, and sent it back to congress to fix it. Instead he, from the bench, rewrote the law.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple...........but only God can count the apples in the seeds.

So, are you saying that if you don't use the word "tax" it can't be a tax? Both the house and the Senate has to vote on everything...so, what are you saying???

The House voted...The Senate voted...The President signed the bill into law.

Grover, where are you Grover!!!

You will not be so cavalier about this issue when it comes back to bite you some day.

Let me repeat it for ya .... prior to this day ....

Taxes could only originate in the house. [this "tax" orginated from the courts in a rewrite in the courts, as the bill specifically calls the penalty a penalty and not a tax, and would not have passed if the Democrats honestly represented it as a tax]

Taxes could only be for the purpose of raising revenue. [this tax is punative].

It sets the precedent that allows congress to force you to do anything, under penalty of tax.

SO .. they can force you buy a gun .. or you'll have to pay a tax. They can force you to buy a hybrid car .. or you will have to pay a tax. They can force you to buy a phone, or pay a tax , a computer or pay a tax, hirer an accountant or pay a tax .. go to the doctor at least once per year or pay a tax, attend college or pay a tax, join the army or pay a tax ... the list goes on and on.

The point is, what you will be forced to do or buy will depend on the political ideology in power at the time .... you are happy today, because Leftist passed this bill .... you won't be happy when Rightist use the same strategy to force you to do something or buy something that you oppose.

I understand what Justice Roberts was trying to do here .. I really do.

1) He was trying to uphold the integrity of the court, to assure people that the court is above politics.

2) He was putting a road block in front of this notion that the commerce clause can be used for compulsory reasons.

3) He was creating a scenario, where the "Will of the People" will figure in this issue. As he noted, it is not the court's role to distinguish between bad policy and good policy. [I'm thinking he was setting this up to be an issue in the election ... figuring the people will either vote Obama and the Democrats in the Sentate out and repeal the law, or let it stand].

BUT ... he made a miscalculation. He has inadvertantly introduced into the record a precedent that Congress can make the Public do something under the penalty of a Tax. Prior to this ruling, it was understood, and maybe even written, that Taxes can only arise from the House [which this one did not, as this "tax" orginated in the courts, as no where in the law is the penalty referred to as a tax, and Obama himself is on record repeately insisting the penalty was not a tax ... and it is assumed that the law would not have passed it had been presented as a tax], AND ... that taxes could only be levied to raise revenue, .. not as a punishment of any sorts.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for this nation. The only saving grace, is that it will carry political ramifications ... as it most likely will this November.

1) From what has come out, it seems as if Roberts was a late switch over to allowing Obamacare. Now he has showed he can be cowed into doing much of what the left wants because they will scream "politics!" into every conservative turn of the court. The miscalculation is that the left won't do this next time.

2) The sudden minority if you will, was going to quash the whole thing. He could have done exactly as you say by changing sides.

3) Here you are wrong. Congress punishes all sorts of people with taxes, from gas to sin taxes.

My take is that Roberts wants to play nice. The left isn't nice, and this will get him exactly zero, except a bunch of Conservatives angry with him. But as we have seen many times in the past, the court doesn't seem to care if they piss off the right, but cower like beaten dogs if the left gets upset.